1. Conviction and life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC for murder — Appeal against High Court order granting bail and suspending sentence. (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 874
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.
Vinod Singh Negi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.1234 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1480 of 2019) with Criminal Appeal No.1235 of 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(Crl.) No.1481 of 2019)
Decided on : 14-08-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Grant of bail during pendency of appeal has to abide by law laid down by Apex Court.
Grant of bail during pendency of appeal has to abide by law laid down by Apex Court.
Subject
Bail - Suspension of Sentence
Act Referred
Headnote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 389 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 – Grant of bail during pendency of appeal – Conviction for murder – High Court has not assigned any reason for grant of bail – Law laid down by Apex Court was not followed by High Court while passing mpugned order – Interference in impugned order is called for – Appellant (complainant) and State have filed additional evidence against accused persons for first time in these appeals to show criminal background of accused persons and list of criminal cases pending against some accused persons for commission of several offences – List shows that some cases were registered against concerned respondents(accused persons) prior to grant of bail and some cases were registered after grant of bail – High Court did not take note of these facts – Impugned order set aside and case remanded to High Court enabling it to reconsider applications for grant of bail/suspension of jail sentence afresh on their respective merits.. (Paras 13 to 17)
Facts of the Case:
Question, that arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether High Court was justified in directing release of all accused persons during pendency of their appeals.
Findings of Court:
Appellant (complainant) and the State have filed additional evidence against the accused persons for the first time in these appeals to show the criminal background of the accused persons and list of criminal cases pending against some accused persons for commission of several offences. List shows that some cases were registered against concerned respondents (accused persons) prior to grant of bail and some cases were registered after the grant of bail. The High Court did not take
Result : Appeals allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner(s):Harshvardhan Pandey, Rohit Kumar Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s) Shrish Kumar Mishra, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, R. Chandrachud, Manju Jetley, Advocates
For the Petitioner(s):Harshvardhan Pandey, Rohit Kumar Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent(s) Shrish Kumar Mishra, Sarvesh Singh Baghel, R. Chandrachud, Manju Jetley, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court was justified in granting bail and suspending the sentence of convicted persons during the pendency of their appeals. (Para 10 )
3. High Court failed to assign reasons for granting bail and ignored evidence regarding the criminal background of the accused. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
4. Orders for bail or suspension of sentence must be reasoned and consider the criminal antecedents of the accused. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 )
5. Impugned order set aside — Case remanded to High Court for fresh consideration of bail applications — Accused directed to surrender. (Para 12 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
6. What is the requirement for courts when deciding applications for bail or suspension of sentence?
Courts must assign reasons for granting bail and follow the established legal approach laid down by the Supreme Court in relevant precedents. (Para 13 , 14 )
7. Does the criminal background of an accused person impact the grant of bail during a pending appeal?
Yes, the criminal background and pending cases against the accused are material facts that the court must take into account when deciding bail or suspension of sentence. (Para 15 , 17 )
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are filed against the final judgment and order dated 19.09.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Crl.A. No.4310 of 2014 and Crl.A. No.4213 of 2014 whereby the High Court released the respondents(accused persons) in both the appeals on bail by suspending their sentence of life imprisonment awarded by the Trial Court in S.T. No.465 of 2006 and S.T. No.466 of 2006.
3. In order to appreciate the short question involved in these appeals, a few facts need mention hereinbelow.
4. The appellant in both the appeals is the complainant whereas Umesh Sharma-respondent No. 2 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.1480 of 2019, Ashok-respondent No. 2 and Parvinder Singh respondent No.3 in Criminal Appeal @ SLP(Crl.) No.1481 of 2019 are the accused persons.
5. Three accused persons, namely, Umesh Sharma, Ashok and Parvinder Singh were prosecuted under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) for commission of murder of one - Manoj, who was brother of the appellant complainant.
6. By judgment dated 28.10.2014/30.10.2014, the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Ghaziabad convicted all the three accused persons under Section 302/34 IPC and sentenced them rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50,000/- each in S.T. No 465 and 466 of 2006.
7. The three accused persons felt aggrieved by their order of conviction and sentence filed criminal appeal in the High Court of Allahabad. During pendency of appeals, all the three accused persons applied for suspension of their jail sentence.
8. By impugned order, the High Court allowed the applications made by all the three accused persons and suspended their respective jail sentence by directing that all the three accused be released on bail.
9. It is against this order, the complainant felt aggrieved and has filed these two appeals by way of special leave in this Court. So far as the State (R1) is concerned, it has supported the appellant by filing their counter affidavit along with annexures. So far accused persons (R2 in Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.)1480/2019 and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in Crl.A.@SLP(CRl.)1481/2019) are concerned, they were served and duly represented except respondent No.3 in Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.)No.1481/2019. The name of respondent No.3, namely, Parvinder Singh, in Crl.A.@SLP(Crl.) No.1481/2019 was deleted from the array of parties by this Court order dated 08.05.2019.
10. So, the short question, that arises for consideration in these appeals, is whether the High Court was justified in directing release of all the aforementioned accused persons during pendency of their appeals.
11. Heard Mr. Siddharth Dave, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Shrish Kumar Misra, learned counsel for the State of U.P. in both the appeals, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.A.@ SLP(Crl.) No.1480/2019, Mr. Ajit Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel for respondent No.2 in Crl.A.@SLP (Crl.) No.1481/2019.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the record of the case, we are constrained to allow these appeals and while setting aside the impugned order, remand the case to the High Court for deciding the applications of these respondents(Accused persons) filed for grant of bail/suspension of jail sentence afresh on merits. The remand is made for two reasons as set out below.
13. In the first place, we find that the High Court has not assigned any reason for grant of bail. How the application of bail/suspension of jail sentence should be decided by the Courts and what should be the approach of the Court while deciding such application remains no more res integra and is laid down by this Court in series of cases (see Ajay Kumar Sharma vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2005) 7 SCC 507, Lokesh Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2008) 16 SCC 753, Dataram Singh vs. State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 3 SCC 22 & judgment dated 29.07
